Nelson v. McDonald

• Decision Date: 01 December 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23084.,23084.
• Citation: 191 N.W. 281,153 Minn. 474
• Parties: NELSON et al. v. McDONALD et al. SAME v. SCHMIDT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

153 Minn. 474

191 N.W. 281

NELSON et al.

v.McDONALD et al.

SAME

v.SCHMIDT.

No. 23084.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 1, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Clay County; Carroll A. Nye, Judge.

Actions by J. A. Nelson and W. F. Nelson, copartners as the Nelson Real Estate Agency, against Dan W. McDonald, in which Fritz Gruhl and another were impleaded, and against G. Schmidt. From orders denying their motion for amended findings and for a new trial, plaintiffs appeal. Order reversed and remanded in the McDonald Case, and order affirmed in the Schmidt Case.

Syllabus by the Court

A provision in a farm contract, reserving the title to the cropper's share of the grain as security for his indebtedness to the landowner, is in effect a chattel mortgage, and the contract should be filed as a chattel mortgage. But if the landowner takes possession of the grain before any other lien attaches thereto, his rights are superior to those of a subsequent attaching creditor, although the contract was not filed.

Where there has been no service of the summons, plaintiffs are not prejudiced by the denial of their motion to strike out an answer interposed in defendant's behalf without his authority.

The court was not bound to accept the uncontradicted testimony of two witnesses as true under the facts stated in the opinion. Hammett & Morton, of Hawley, for appellants.

Chas. S. Marden, of Moorhead, for respondents.

LEES, C.

Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendant Schmidt, whereby he agreed to till their farm in Clay county during the farming season of 1920, and they agreed to deliver to him, for his services, two-thirds of the crops produced on the farm. It was agreed that plaintiffs should retain possession of the crops until a division thereof, and should have the right to hold out of Schmidt's share enough to pay his indebtedness to them, if any there should be. The contract was not filed as a chattel mortgage. Schmidt planted all but 50 acres of the tilled land with seed grain furnished by the respondent Fritz Gruhl, a cousin with whom he had lived for several years. Gruhl neglected to take a seed grain note or contract to secure a lien on the crops. Near the end of June, plaintiffs' agents discovered that all the land was not being cropped. To make good plaintiffs' damage resulting from this breach of the contract, they took Schmidt's note for $75. They assert that they also obtained from him a promise to summer-fallow the unplanted land. Schmidt harvested and threshed the grain, disposed of some of it, and then abandoned the farm and went to parts unknown.

On October 20, 1920, Gruhl brought an action against him, obtained a writ of attachment, and delivered it for service to the respondent McDonald, who is the sheriff of Clay county. On the same day plaintiffs' agents went to the farm and began to haul away the grain. After they had hauled off two loads of oats, they received notice from McDonald to desist, and hauled no more grain. McDonald did not actually take the grain into his possession, but late in the afternoon filed a copy of the writ of attachment, with his return thereon, in the office of the register of deeds. On October 25th plaintiffs served the affidavit and demand prescribed by section 7843, G. S. 1913, and subsequently sued McDonald for the conversion of the grain. They also brought an action against Schmidt on his $75 note, on another note of $250 he had given for the hay crop, and for $150 damages for the breach of his alleged promise to summer-fallow 50 acres. The first case will hereafter be referred to as the McDonald Case, and the second as the Schmidt Case.

In the McDonald Case, by order of the court obtained upon plaintiffs' application, Gruhl and his son Richard were required to appear and answer. They answered, pleading the attachment and claiming the grain by virtue thereof. In the Schmidt Case, at Gruhl's request, his attorney answered for Schmidt, admitting the execution of the notes and denying the promise to summer-fallow the land. The two actions were consolidated for trial and tried by the court. In the McDonald Case the court held that by virtue of the attachment the Gruhls were entitled to two-thirds of the grain, and in the Schmidt Case that there should be no recovery of damages for the failure to summer-fallow the land. In each case plaintiffs moved for amended findings and for a new trial, and have appealed from the denial of their motions.

McDonald Case.

[1] In McNeal v. Rider, 79 Minn. 153, 81 N. W. 830,79 Am. St. Rep. 437, it was held that a provision reserving the title to the cropper's share of the grain as security for his indebtedness to the landowner was in legal effect a chattel mortgage, and was not valid as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser unless it was filed as a chattel mortgage. But, although a...